Manchester City and Chelsea Trophies Weren’t Bought; They Earned Them

Three weeks ago Manchester City clinched their first Premier League title in dramatic fashion, beating QPR with two injury time goals. It was a remarkable day, and a fitting way to end a thrilling, season-long title race with bitter rivals Manchester United. Since then, they have been praised by the media and fans alike for their impressive achievement, and rightly so.

Regrettably however, there are plenty who have shamefully taunted City for ‘buying’ their success, accusing them of ruining the English game by reducing it to a financial pissing contest. Mainly bitter fans of other teams, they seek to undermine the achievement of Roberto Mancini’s side by declaring that it was the minimum expected for a club who had spent so much money. This is a lazy, knee-jerk reaction to their success which, as well as being highly predictable, smacks of jealousy. It’s a shame that Manchester City’s fans, who have lived for so long in the shadow of United, aren’t allowed to enjoy one of the proudest moments in their club’s history without having to listen to such negative drivel.

It’s clear to even the most casual observer that big spending does not automatically translate into trophies. Since being taken over by the Abu Dhabi United Group, City has spent money like it was going out of fashion, yet this season they only just beat Manchester United to the Premier League crown, with goal difference deciding it in the end. Last season they didn’t challenge for the title, and the season before that they failed to even finish in the top four. This has not been because they haven’t played well; in fact there have been times in the last three seasons when their football has been of the highest calibre. It’s just that breaking into the top echelons of the English game is extremely difficult; never mind winning the league itself.

While it’s true that winning football matches is easier for teams with better players, much more than money is needed to win silverware, especially a league title. Just ask any Chelsea supporter: they’ll tell you that good management and consistency are crucial. I think it’s fair to say that given Roman Abramovich’s huge investment in his club, most people would have expected Chelsea to win more than three Premier League titles in nine seasons.

When Chelsea has won their league titles, it has been with Mourinho and Ancelotti, two of the world’s finest managers, at the helm. Big names like Ranieri, Scolari and Villas-Boas were unable to add league titles to their collection, despite having huge transfer budgets at their disposal. Many people forget that Mourinho and Ancelotti themselves also failed in title races, a fact which only serves to highlight Roberto Mancini’s feat.

In fairness, Chelsea now also has a Champions League, as well as multiple FA Cups, but these were won with more than money alone. The point of this example is that they have also had periods of distinctive underachievement, despite the resources available to them.

Another very recent example of this is Liverpool. Since being taken over by John W. Henry and Fenway Sports Group, they have embarked on an ambitious strategy of rebuilding, fuelled by high-profile acquisitions in the transfer market. Despite splashing out on the likes of Suarez, Carroll, Henderson and Downing, they have only a Carling Cup and an eighth-place finish this season to show for it. Fenway Sports Group saw this as an unsatisfactory return on their sizeable investment and it has cost Kenny Dalglish his job.

In recent years, the assorted leagues of Europe have been littered with clubs who have spent big and achieved relatively little. Aside from Chelsea and Liverpool, names like Leeds United, Real Madrid, Malaga and PSG come to mind as examples of this. The truth is that having money may help your cause, but trophies are only won when a club has excellent management and buys well. The argument that spending money alone ensures that a club will enjoy success on the field is overly-simplistic and flawed.

Another point City’s critics make is that with such expensive talent in the squad, anyone could have been the manager and they still would have won the league. This is also nonsense. Roberto Mancini has done magnificently well and without him, the title would surely be in Sir Alex Ferguson’s hands. This season he certainly had the beating of Ferguson, as he masterminded two crucial victories in the league over his opposite number. He also gave Manchester City much-needed consistency, especially at home, where they dropped only two points over the course of the campaign.

His handling of some of the biggest egos in football was perfect, of which the most obvious example was Carlos Tevez. Mancini, whose man-management skills have been criticised in the past, did exactly the right thing in banishing the troublesome star after the September’s fiasco in Munich, which threatened to derail City’s season almost before it started. Late in the campaign, with his back against the wall, the Italian swallowed his pride and recalled Tevez, who then produced some fine performances over final stretch. It was a move which probably won his club the title. That’s man-management at its best, if you ask me.

So while Manchester City will always be the target of bitter resentment as long as they spend more than everyone else, it is wrong to attribute their triumphs solely to money. Many clubs over the years have tried and failed to win titles with their chequebooks. Although City has outspent their competition, they have also earned their success, and as such should receive the same recognition any other club would.

Related Posts

About The Author

Ben Weich, a Tottenham Hotspur fan based in Manchester, UK, is an aspiring sports journalist and recent Economics graduate. He’s written for a number of blogs and local newspapers, and will begin an NCTJ diploma in sports journalism in September 2014.
You can find him on Twitter via @benweich

82 Comments

edwinnnnMay 30, 2012

Have to disagree. You’re right that it takes more than money to win trophies but the money put them at the top table and gave them the opportunity to compete. They didn’t earn that right they bought it.

The ASTRONOMICAL amounts of money City and Chelsea have spent puts every other club that competes with them at a disadvantage. It’s unfair, it’s unruly and the while the players that wear the shirts may have earned those trophies the clubs didn’t.

It was the money that assembled the team, was it not? What obscurity would both teams be facing without their uber millions?? Sure, the team effort brought the reward, but both sides would be a lower-table/relegation certainty without their seemingly limitless investment. The majority of players for both teams would have turned their noses up at less well-off clubs, you and i both know it. They came to the club for money, the titles that came were because of the money.

The investments made, some astronomical figure i can’t quite recall, in excess of £1 billion contributed to the acquisition of the title for city. Money doesn’t buy titles? Who won la liga this season? Money did.

Fernando Torres, £50 million. The most unlikely of souls given recent performance, scores a late goal in Champs League semi-final against Barcelona. Thus ensuring final qualification. Bought.

Jealous. City deserved their title, in terms of performance. United were frought with injuries throughout, forcing a number of key people to play out out of position (and their comfort zones). Would City have won the title after losing Komapny to injury like we did with Vidic for half a season??? We played a lot of kids this season, and finished on par with one of the most expensive teams in the world, losing out on on goal difference. Jealous? No. Proud actually. Given our outcome domestically, despite our plight, that’s something for opposing teams to be concerned about going forward. We did it with kids/37-38 year old veterans and injuries and came within 40 seconds of causing the single biggest upset of the richest team.

The fact that the majority say it, about City and Chelsea buying trophies speaks volumes. It’s not out of jealousy, it’s out of fact.

Please. What facts do you have that say Chelsea would be a team fighting for relegation without money? People seem to forget Chelsea are one of 7 teams that have been in every PL. Before RA took over, Chelsea were consistent top 6 finishers in the previous decade, including winning 2 FA cups, a UEFA cup winners cup (Europa cup as it is now) and a super cup!

You Man United fan’s also fail to see over the 20 years before RA took over, you were in fact the big spenders and even since then, you haven’t been too far off the pace in your spending. Keep your mouth shut unless you know the facts.

Another Chelsea supporter who doesn’t know his own history telling someone to get their facts straight!

Chelsea have a history of flirting with, and falling through the relegation trap door. You also have a history of fighting insolvency, as the old “Save the Bridge” campaign – the one that made the non-profit organization “Chelsea Pitch Owners” the controlling partners for Stamford Bridge – attests.

Without Roman spending over 85% one revenues on the team (and that doesn’t count what he spent to make the team in the first place, back in the Cech /Carvalho / Drogba purchase days) you’d be sunk.

Man City, BTW, spent 114% of their turnover based on conservative estimates this year. That’s IMPOSSIBLE to maintain without a sugar daddy.

I wont blame the Glazers’ clowns, if they thought own a football club such as United can generate a massive profits, laughable…..I blame David Gill as he should know better.

Having such a massive debt is a huge risk if mainly depends on a pitch success, and this season trophy less proved to be financial disaster for the club and if you think otherwise…… look up the word ‘Deluded’

Man City where a bounce club till the cash was dumped into the team… Chelsea where an up and down club, some seasons fighting for Europe, an struggling to stay up. Frankly a club like Everton has a more consistent history.
So of course the silverware was paid for, but you have to say the same about Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal. While all have different spending models, all can point to their success from money and players brought into the squad.
The reason why CFC and Man City get the big target on their kits, is because of the rapid and sometimes frivolous spending on players.

What would it take for Everton to win the league now then? Oh yes that’s right MONEY and lots of it! There is no other way. It would have to be rapid and frivolous. Top players wouldn’t go there so they would have to buy decent one at a high price then replace them with top class which causes it own problems. Then what would you say? They bought it, as they would have but no different than any other! Bitterness, envy and jealousy would all follow!

Of course there is jealousy… the field isn’t weighed fairly. and I’m not saying that it ever will be or should be, but of course the have nots will point out the very fact that the system is weighed to give most teams a chance. Man U 12 times, Chelsea and Arsenal each with three, and Blackburn and Man City each with one. and even worse only six other clubs have finished in the top 3, with only Liverpool in the last decade finishing in the top three.

Let’s not for a second think that either team would be where they are now without huge financial backing from their respective owners’ personal fortunes. Their money is the only reason they’re able to compete in the first place.

Saying that though, from the moment Sky got involved with the Premier League in 1992 is was the beginning of a brand new era – big spending. There was finally more money than ever before and the top flights clubs embraced it so there is no excuses from anybody as to why we’re in the position we are at now. Fans of top flight clubs can’t watch on as their clubs have danced with the devil for all these years and loved the millions coming in from Sky every year but then complain when certain clubs strike lucky and get a billionaire owner because it’s a natural progression of the dangerous game started in 1992… it’s just snowballed.

Fact is, no matter how much money a club spends, the players on that team still need to gel and play well together and for that I can’t knock the likes of Man City because they earned it. They were gifted in how they got that team together, but they still had to work for it on the pitch and get the results.

Would YOU be complaining if it was YOUR team? I don’t think anybody would. Somehow I highly doubt that Man City fans are sat there thinking they shouldn’t have won the title just because they have a very large money source and they had a huge helping hand in reaching a competitive level. I’d love it if it happened to my team because we could once again compete at the highest level. I congratulate them on their achievement.

“Saying that though, from the moment Sky got involved with the Premier League in 1992 is was the beginning of a brand new era – big spending.”

Pretty much. Whenever I hear people accuse City & Chelsea of buying their titles, I always think, “Don’t hate the player; hate the game.” Also, as the writer of the original post pointed out, even with their money, City still had to actually, you know, play as a team, before they began winning anything.

Take it from a Yankee fan: money will buy you good players, but it does not buy team chemistry and all the other intangibles that also help to win titles.

Let’s not for a second think that either team would be where they are now without huge financial backing from their respective owners’ personal fortunes. Their money is the only reason they’re able to compete in the first place.

Again that’s the same for all the winners! Utd won with the most expensive squad. Blackburn spent massively as well. Arsenal didn’t get Bergkamp et al. for nothing they spent BIG as did Chelsea and City.When did you see team that haven’t win the prem? That’s right they haven’t!

The argument that Man City and Chelsea bought their titles is a fallacy.

The truth is titles have always been bought. Ferguson spent a fortune in the late eighties at Man U and won nothing (it was something like 13 million, an unheard of amount then). He was saved by an FA Cup win, apparently. Lazio did something similar in the 90’s…

I remember sneering at my southern MU fans then winning nothing with such and outlay. But eventually they did win and went on to be the best team of the time.

Back then the “Top Six” were concocting plans to give them advantages over the rest of the fist division. I used to get angry then because Everton and Tottenham were part of this “Top Six”, Chelsea were not but we were often much better than those two. Then the Premier League came along…But don’t worry folks Uefa are doing there best to return advantages to those old school top teams. I’m sure some top lawyers are on the case for Man City etc. finding those loopholes.

I would love to see Everton have better resources. They’re a club who seems to do so much with so little. Newcastle proved this past year you can achieve great things without spending like mad men. That said, any fan of any team would want their owner to have the resources to get the player needed.

Such arrogance and delusion to believe that both Man City and Chelsea’s success wasn’t bought. What is it then? Coincidence? This is a stupid and biased article that should never have made it into a respectable site like EPL Talk.

But then the purpose of a blog is to give one’s personal opinions, right? So why are you angry with this article when the author was simply giving his opinion on this matter? You might disagree with him and have your own viewpoint, which is perfectly fine. But there’s no need to react like this.

Speaking as an Everton supporter, I admit that I have strong feeling towards City and Chelsea. Some of it is jealousy, sure. If Everton suddenly got itself a sugar daddy and won the Premier League, I would be ecstatic. I could probably rationalize that we deserved it after the long years of being skint. But in the back of my mind I would know that we bought the title and it probably wouldn’t taste as sweet. The fact is though, that Everton have zero chance at winning the Premier League right now without a massive cash infusion. It’s a difficult conundrum. At some point, you just have to admit that the league table is heavily determined by money and accept it.

I’m hoping Financial Fair Play will at least stop owners from spending far beyond the means of the club. It really is a bit silly that teams like City and Chelsea spend vastly more on their wage bill than they make in turnover (revenue) during a year. I guess it’s easier to stomach when I can at least tell myself, “They spend more because they make more”.

Mekias, I don’t understand why you want ‘Financial Fair Play will at least stop owners from spending far beyond the means of the club.’ this is how football was always run. Local chairmen putting in more than the should etc. Do you actually know how many clubs live within there means? Or ever did? Financial Fair Play is about one thing greed of the organization that runs football and certain club owners, nothing more.

Those that spend because they make more have had years of making more and were keep making more by lopsided payments that didn’t exist before the 90’s, by the next few year these clubs will have grown commercially etc and be able to have said about them “They spend more because they make more”. What will your stance be then?

English football is becoming more, and more dominant in the World game the Spanish two keep up only because of there leagues totally unbalanced TV funding, how many more year will they be able to keep up as countries around the World grow tired of Barca v Madrid? In England it could be Utd, City, Chelsea, Arsenal even Liverpool or Spurs etc. So why pay big money for an eternal 2 horse race.

Financial Fair Play isn’t a great solution to the problem but it’s the best we’re going to get. There are still loopholes and creative accounting in FFP that allow quite a bit of leeway in the losses a club can take on before FFP bans them from Europe. Clubs like ManCity have increased their revenue in the past few years but they’re still nowhere near a sustainable financial model. What FFP will allow is that an owner can spend as much as they want on building infrastructure and youth academies. This insures that future clubs still have a viable avenue for growth, just at a slower pace where they don’t risk financial ruin.

I don’t doubt that the some owners and managers started pushing for FFP to try and keep their strange-hold on financial superiority. That doesn’t mean to say that it’s not a good idea for the general health of European football. Liverpool almost went into administration as they tried to spend their way back into the upper echelon. It wouldn’t be good for the Premier League to lose a team like that. Many owners try to rack up immense debt to stay competitive and can easily end up becoming the next Portsmouth. I know Everton had to use their entire £10 million transfer fee from Arteta in order to pay off the banks. Everton are still sitting on shaky ground due to their bad debt. That debt was built up over several years as they tried to get back into Champions League and failed.

Another thing is that clubs like City and Chelsea are driving up transfer fees and wages to insane levels, making it incredibly hard for other clubs to keep their best players. Instead they end up sitting on the bench or even in the reserve squad at one of the rich clubs. How does that help the EPL when so many of its star players are never even seen? Sure, some of transfer and wage increases are expected but when some bench players get paid more than almost the entire squad of Wigan, things are a bit out of whack.

You don’t get it do you? Football has done fine without FFP for well over a hundred years! Clubs don’t die as they have supporters. Even with the high money stakes now try and name one that has? You can’t as they don’t exist, only in the imagination of idiots. If there is harm being done in football it’s because all the money is directed to the top teams sod the lower divisions eh? Teams may go down but this has always happened in football no club has a right to be in the Prem. All FFP is about now is keeping the big boys big by giving them more money. Now what is fair about that?

Preston NE, Huddersfield, Sheffield Weds etc all had there moments they never can again and FFP is just another nail in the coffin that is stopping them. By the way Portsmouth are still going aren’t they? They have been in the third tear of English football a good few times before you know and so what football has and all ways will be full of ups and down’s. FFP is only about certain clubs having constant ups!
Another thing you don’t seem to realize is both Portsmouth and Rangers are in trouble not because of over spending but dodgy owners who simply ripped then off yes legal robbery clear as day. How can FFP stop that? It can’t, all it can do is keep the fat cats fat that’s exactly what it was put in place for (hopefully this message will sink in), I follow one of these clubs but am still not stupid enough to think it’s about protecting football it’s about stopping competition for these clubs.You think Plattini cares what happens to Blackburn or how much he can get for himself? Hmm I wonder! How much would UEFA make if Stoke got to play Zaragoza in the next few years CL final? How much would they lose in TV rights and sponsorship etc? It would be a worst nightmare for them! If not for massively lopsided payments this could be a possibility, it really did happen in the past before football was really ruined i.e. Nott’s Forest V Malamo. Football is now a disgusting mess all about money. FFP takes away the football fans final dream why? GREED.

If Utd are paying £31m for Berbatov, £20m for De Gea not to mention £30m TEN YEARS ago for Ferdinand whose wage they were put up to a record £120k pw 7 years ago upon threatening to leave or Rooney being England’s top earner (again upon threatening to leave) not to mention Liverpool paying £20m and God knows what wage to average players like Downing, how can you say City and Chelsea are ‘Raising transfer fees and wages’. You are regurgitating what you have read instead of thinking about it for yourself and looking at facts, why not it’s easier that way I guess? Do you think Arsenal could have bought Veron and Ferdinand at that time? Wasn’t that Utd inflating the market? Star players on the bench like who? Berbatov? Hernandez? Come on mate get your act together

One thing you don’t seem to get is that you’re not always right, no matter how much you babble on. I didn’t quite reach the end of any of your ramblings but what I deciphered is that it’s your opinion but stop forcing it down people’s throats as fact. Other people have different opinions and views on things so stop diving in there to preach at them. Don’t blur the lines. Other people can express their views too… Doesn’t always need you to write back shooting them down because you think you’re always right about everything.

Football would continue to do fine without FFP. I didn’t say it wouldn’t. I just don’t get why asking clubs to be somewhat financially responsible is a bad thing. Clubs don’t die but I sure am glad I’m not a Portsmouth supporter. If Everton went into administration, had to sell off the entire squad, and tumbled down to League One, it would certainly feel like the death of the club. I’m not sure what you mean when you say the big boys are being given more money by FFP.

FFP won’t stop dodgy owners but Portsmouth clearly spent above their means and then suddenly got the rug pulled out from under them when the owner decided he didn’t want to bankroll them any more. I’ve said before that FFP won’t solve all the problems but I think it’s a step in the right direction (provided it’s actually implemented correctly).

If you don’t believe that City and Chelsea are raising transfer fees and wages, then I don’t know what else to say to you. Obviously ManU have done this in the past and Liverpool has definitely done it recently as well. City and Chelsea have just been the most egregious culprits in recent years. There are many, many great players sitting on the benches and reserve teams of clubs like City, Chelsea, and ManU. I would love to see them playing. They would be the stars on many a Premier League side.

I’m not sure what to make of your accusations about regurgitating stuff I’ve read. I assure you, everything I’m saying are my own thoughts and opinions. Hey, maybe I’m wrong. It won’t be the first time. But, then again, maybe I’m right.

LFC, You seem to be confused pal! Thats exactly what the idea of the site is for giving opinions and agreeing or opposing other’s, which is what I have done, i didnt get yours on the subject though as u haven’t given one! Of course I think my opinions are right that why they are my opinions doh. I try to back them with fact and events unlike some who have used bitterness and jealousy. Looking at the thumbs up and down people seem to agree with my opinions as well, unlike yourself I haven’t come to slag an individual off only give a opinion on what others have said which is the idea after all. Frankly I couldn’t careless what you think as your opinion is about me not football. Funnily enough it’ll probably be Liverpool that FFP may well finnish keep down, maybe u don’t have an opinion but I do and when people talk of it doing good they have clearly bought it hook line and sinker. Come to think of It I have never seen u here before at all,strange that are u in disguise?

Mekias, clubs on the whole have never been financially responsible thats not how it works this business malarkey is great for the owners and UEFA but for the fans they wanna see good football and be entertained not the owners and UEFA creaming in millions every year. When growing up you dreamt of trophies right? Some are now dreaming of what there club makes, seeArsenal fans on here why the hell they are bothered what the owners who are only in it for the money take is beyond me!
FFP says to Everton u cannot compete on the same level as the top clubs, u are not allowed to take the same root they ALL took or they will make sure you fail by withholding money, ending that dream of new ownership and investment once and for all. FFP dosent give more money that’s not what I meant it’s to stop u doing what Utd, city, Chelsea and others did to get where they are in the first place which is spend more. Everton have a good youth player great then one of UEFA’s favourites will take him as they can pay much more your not allowed to even if your owners will take the hit and can easily afford it! incedently league one isn’t that bad and after all to really experience the highs you must experience the lows!
While Everton are paying off these debts do you think Kenwright has put himself on a low wage? Did he take any dividends since being the owner? I think you know the answer Everton has been good to him but has he been good to them?

Portsmouth’s owner didn’t stop bank rolling them they legally stole enough from a ltd company and left a shell do you know the manager got a percentage of player sales? Why is that? That owner should be band from ownership he has become a lot richer with his dodgy ownerships of various clubs.
Administration is the failing of the current owners not the club, new owners would arrive this has happened through out the history of football again NO club deserves a right to be at the top however big they are, the mighty can and have fell many times in football sometimes they stay down but that’s the way it always was and is, it doesn’t need protecting!

City and Chelsea are inflating fees and wages but no more than Liverpool and Utd and others How much were liverpool paying Daglish? Where city paying any of there forward near that? NO they weren’t how about more recent Carrick compared to Barton at city? So why single out City and Chelsea when other were always and still are guilty of this? I asked you who these great players where on the bench, you may get a surprise although football is no longer who has a great team it’s about who has the great squad but o’m sure your aware of that this takes away from your question, again this is not of citys and Chelsea’s making that’s modern football but again they were singled out!

I’m sorry but anybody that thinks FFP is for one second for the good of football, well they are mugs! Plain and simple a bit like themselves.

P.S. If the fact that I’ve answered u upsets LFC then tuff luck as I may be wrong but I thought that was the idea lol.

Everton supporters need to worry about our finances constantly. It certainly isn’t fun but that extra £1 mill from the FA Cup run could mean getting a key player for next year (i.e. Pienaar). Last year we were skint and didn’t buy a single player, even after selling Arteta. But that’s life in the mid-table of the Premier League. You have to sell to buy. As for Kenwright taking money, this is from the Annual Report:

“The Directors of the Company received no remuneration during the year.”

Kenwright has always said he takes no money from the club. Some refuse to believe that but there is no proof but I’m inclined to believe him. That’s not to say that he isn’t rubbish at doing his job. Everton go down in turnover every year, has sold our training facility to pay debts, and still hasn’t found a solution for Goodison Park (either expansion or moving).

The “dream” of a billionaire swooping in to buy your club is just that, a dream. More often than not, a scumbag will come in, leverage your club to the eyeballs and then laugh all the way to the bank. If I have to wait for a fairy godmother to come in and return Everton to its former glory, I might as well stop watching altogether. A magic wand is not something a supporter should be relying on.

I’m singling out City and Chelsea because they are the posterboys of football economics gone out of control; spending billions on a whim with no real plan to recuperate the money spent. I’ll give it to City though. They’ve spent a ton on the club infrastructure and have a good chance of staying at the top. Chelsea have been at this much longer than City and have very little to show for it.

Mekias, Imagine how much worrying you’d be doing if you followed say Plymouth Argyle?

Directors cannot take dividends for the periods the Club is not in profit, if the Club made profit it wouldn’t be just up to Kenwright the other directors would demand them and why not? If they have or haven’t though it wouldn’t stop them raising there own wages to what ever they want, you wouldn’t know as wages are all grouped together in year ends. I cannot understand why Everton wouldn’t be making a profit as although they have spent big it was some time ago.

The dream of the billionaire is no longer that applicable as FFP has just warded of any potential, serious inverters as Europe is needed to get a World wide following that can support a club and you can’t get there with out major investment sure you can have the odd year in 4th but that’s it nothing that could sustain a club at the top.

‘spending billions on a whim with no real plan to recuperate the money spent.’ Here it is again, where are the billions that City have spent it’s not that much difference to what the owners of Utd have on players, wages, debt and buying the club etc £220m for the club £450m on players similar sums to Utd on wages. Yes city have losses but that’s same as Utd’s losses on interest payments. On City’s last year end City were paying more wages than utd but for 2 of the other 4 years Utd were paying much more so this would even out between the two. You cannot buy a Club take it to the top and expect to be making a profit after 4 years they came with a 10 year plan which is ahead in every department.
I cannot believe that you now still think that they buy players on a whim or have no plan in the first year this may have been near the truth but they just needed names and decent players to get them into a position to kick on up the league from this would and did attract others. Don’t you remember ‘money can’t buy success’? and ‘It will take years for City to even get in the top 4’? These were wrong as well as many other stupid thing people said that have now disappeared only to be replaced with more rubbish that will also go in the next few years! Mancini hasn’t signed a single player on a ‘whim’ don’t know what you’re thinking here?
In many way City are now above Arsenal and others at the top in money coming in and are heading upwards faster than any. I don’t think Chelsea are the same as City I think there owner is more of a fan type if you like he gets involved way to much, whereas the City owners take a back seat. In fact he has only even visited the club once!

If you can only afford cheap. tasty yet greasy and unhealthy food, than your sh!t will stinks and will have an effect your health and looks!!! BUT, If you can afford top quality food, healthy organics products, lobsters & caviars and all good eats…….Than there you get the picture

Stopped reading after City portion about how they have been pouring money into the team for some time now and they just won the title. AND? They continued to pour money into the team and finally bought all the players required to win the title. To think otherwise you’d be delusional or a city fan which is one in the same.

Forgot to mention that you failed to be champions of Europe, don’t be bitter. You’re also an idiot who could use less double exclamation marks. Does supposed to evoke the emotion that you REALLY, REALLY MEAN IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As someone pointed out earlier the introduction of Sky changed the finances in England forever.

If you have the money you’re going to spend it. You can go the Arsenal way and pretend that that is the correct way of doing things. This establishes a model of bringing through young players but it doesn’t deliver victory at least for Arsenal. Ferguson did this in the 90s and won. You draw your own conclusion’s on that.

Man City couldn’t make it out of the group phase for crying out loud so this notion that money means success is off base. To those who claim the achievements are tarnished is just sour grapes.

No one club/supporters are subject to claim a moral high ground when we, viewers/supporters, are the sole reason the Premier League is the cash cow that it is.

Its not just the amounts of money, it’s the time taken and how they attained it. What I’m about to say will sting as I write it, but here goes. Manchester United, the arse, and (not so much now) Liverpool earned there stature and developed their clubs not with instantaneous influxes of mega cash but through winning.

Sure arsenal and man utd have money and power in football, but it came through putting out winning teams for decades, Chelsea and Man City were terrible fir the 70’s 80’s and the 90’s infact city and chelsea were terrible at the start of this millenium until the mega cash influx.

Sure there are a lot of fans that want their club to win the title and trophies every year, and don’t really care how much money it takes, and it is a very american über capitalist opinion to not care how to win or where the cash came from (as most of the comments above show) as long as you win.

It wasn’t like Man City and Chelsea put out winning teams through developing youth players, or finding great talent in the lower leagues, or foreign leagues and emphasized playing great football. Unfortunately, the arse and man utd have, it is a slower process but it is why other fans criticize Man city and Chelsea.

I guess a fair analogy would be like the difference between someone that eats microwave meals and someone that prepares and actually creates and cooks food.

You have people the see food as fuel (these would be the football fans that don’t care how it’s done, just win) and people that appreciate food and take time to create and deliver great taste and treat it as an experience (these would be fans that care how you win and where the money comes from).

So it really does depend on what your tastes or opinions are, but when someone tries to pass of microwave food as great food home made food from scratch or fine dinning, that’s where people have conflict, if the fans of these clubs were actually happy with their microwave food and didn’t want anything more then they wouldn’t keep writing articles about why it doesn’t matter where the money came from or weather they parked the bus and play horrid football to win a cup.

The thing is these clubs tried being good cooks, but just aren’t, they sucked, then they gave up and went out and got themselves a Russian or Qatar made microwave, shinny and impressive technology and then went to Marks and spencer to buy the fansiest microwave dinners they could find to pass it off as the real deal, but everyone else called them out, now they are for some reason embarrassed and won’t shut up trying to justify it.

Ribena isn’t a 2004 Opus One,
Jack Daniels isn’t a 30 year McAllen

So stop trying to convince everyone it is, and be happy you have won titles and cups I the manner you did.

(abromivich 2.9 billion over 9 years)
(sheik whatever his name is 1.8 billion over 4 years)

People arguing “if you have the money, you’ll spend it” and “would you be mad if it was your club?” are missing the point. It doesn’t matter how the supporters feel or would feel- the fact remains that the titles were bought. Any argument to the contrary is foolish.

I never argued right or wrong. In fact, my point was the opposite. I’m saying the author of this article is wrong. The titles were bought, plain and simple. Whether you agree with their method or care is up to you.

These titles were bought as they were for all the other Prem and Champs league winners just as they will be in the next 10 years and more, I don’t get your point.
Your either stating the blatantly obvious or saying that only Chelsea and City have done this, which is just as blatantly wrong!

Well, that was a hackneyed article if ever I’ve seen one. Stupid, too.

Watching two teams massively increase the distance in competitive capacity between 1st and 10th, and being unhappy about that, is “sour grapes”? The two titles they just purchased are the only factor in the discussion, we don’t need to look at all the trophies they will continue to purchase in the next 5-10 years now that they have solidified their privileged positions? You want Mancini to get credit for the work he’s done, so we should all just ignore the elephant in the room?

I don’t derive any sense of entertainment, let alone virtual accomplishment, from watching teams operate in an expanded Harlem Globetrotters – Washington Generals system, where each team in the competition is merely a ladder rung for players trying to prove they belong on the top rung team where they can be handed their trophies. The game as played by Barca and Real is very high quality football… and rapidly becoming farcical as a “competition”. So no, I’m not going to applaud the massive changes in income inequality, whether from Sky or oil money or any other source. Man City and Chelsea are prime movers in that phenomenon, and what they have just done is properly condemned, not applauded.

Other teams have spent money but it didn’t guarantee them anything? What an awful red herring. Those other teams generally haven’t spent on anything like the same scale. The money didn’t translate into silverware right away, in season one, so there’s no problem here? Read your own argument again, and turn your brain on while you’re doing so. What makes you think, absent further takeovers from super-wealthy consortiums, that there is going to be any meaningful sense of “competition” in the EPL in the next decade? I don’t give a flying **** which half of Manchester wins the trophy next year, or the year after that. It sure as hell won’t be Arsenal, who despite excellent management simply cannot keep up with this kind of financial avalanche. It won’t be Tottenham, whose engine has overheated just trying to get to fourth place. Let alone any of the lesser teams, makeweights like Everton, Villa, Newcastle, etc.

You want to defend Man City? You want to defend Chelsea? You want to claim that what they have done is an admirable piece of work, that we should laud them for their titles, and that not joining in the lovefest is somehow illegitimate? **** you.

Anybody remember and miss the Man City club that featured Ben Thatcher and Joey Barton… DaMarcus Beasley played on that squad… That was the team that scored 29 goals in the entire season, and nearly went down. was 2006/07?? not really that long ago.

I could be wrong (and im not going to look it up) but wasnt the starting squad for United more expensive then the starting squad of City this year? (For some reason United fans feel they are entitled to this, and it is ok. United and Bayern are the same in this sense). SAF and United fans are just bitter other teams are spending money like they used to do. Dont blame losing the title on money, blame it on SAF, who made multiple terrible squads decisions in both domestic and UEFA matches.

Manchester United’s squad is enormously expensive. I guess you find some difference in the source of the money to buy players coming from people who buy Rooney shirts vs. people who fill up their car with petrol. I don’t.

This wasn’t the case at the start of Utd’s journey though was it? Only after they had jumped onto that gravy train that pulled in to Trafford Bar in 1993. Then they had no need to be in the massive debt they were before anymore it was all taken care of.

Surely the exact same thing can be said about Manchester United (and others) then? As they spent vast fortunes as well, and I don’t mean after 1993 I mean before then. In fact they were the biggest spending club England had ever seen by a long, long way at that time, it’s funny how people seem not to remember that or just plain old ignore it!
Don’t believe it? Well I’ll prove it. In 1989/90 Utd’s squad cost over £18m ( you can check this on Wikipedia or just Google each player’s prices if you think it’s not correct.) Now compare that to the 89/90 league Champions Liverpool, with a team that cost around £6.7m . That’s nearly 3 times more right?
By the way to put it into a bit more perspective for everybody City’s team of that year cost around £2.4m and Chelsea’s was about £3.1 (again this can be verified as above.) In fact check any team’s costs out! Nowhere even near what Utd’s cost. Do people here see the huge difference in spending? You can’t miss it can you?
Today City’s current squad cost around £361m, Chelsea’s around £342m and Manchester United’s team comes in at around £277m. The difference in City & Utd is maybe three decent players. Now was that the difference in 89? No it most Certainly wasn’t more like decent 13 players!! The difference between Utd and there nearest rivals was even around 8 players! Yet they still finished a whooping 12 places behind them in 13th, one above City on the same points and 7 behind Chelsea, and this after an record breaking £18m investment the likes England had never seen!! Wasn’t that buying the League? Just because there is now more money involved in the game makes no difference at all it just means exactly what it says on the tin, there is more money now, the biggest sending teams win it’s simple as that and always was in modern football.

Now for the Utd ‘earned’ it brigade! The £18m that bought Utd’s squad in the 1989/90 season which ultimately gained them success they went on to enjoy in the 90’s and then built on with the new lopsided Premier league payments, TV money etc. It wasn’t earned at all, they hadn’t won anything major since 1968 so no revenue from winnings! It wasn’t the fans as the stadium in the previous 3 years were 39,077, 36.847 and 39,216 Av with entrance fees at the time being between £1-£5. So it didn’t come from here! So where? I’ll tell ya, loans and the owners money, it’s that simple. That year Utd’s owners were panicking and trying to off load the club to any one, but there were no buyers. They were in trouble, things needed to change big time. The very next year Utd was floated on the stock market as Spurs had done before them. They had bought breathing space and time, then they bought even more players and in the end it paid off just like it has now at City. Only difference is that the English record Transfer is now £50m and not £2.3m it was then, held by Utd of course.

The writer keeps mentioning the word ‘bitter’, I think that’s right. That’s all it boils down to in the end, before Chelsea, Utd were unchallenged on the spending front they had carte blanche on the best players.
A monopoly was made in English football with the laughably named ‘Champions League’ and it’s placing system that was never seen before this led to the haves and have not’s getting further and further away from each other, is this ‘earning it’? Not a chance it’s top loaded and wrong and only heading one way.
Now with the even more laughably named Financial Fair Play rule UEFA try to consolidate World football’s elite at the top for greed nothing more and the fools that fall for this are just that, FOOLS! These rules won’t affect City who are now a part of this disgusting mess. Other clubs fans can forget joining this club as the doors have now been slammed shut, you may as well follow one of the elite as your team has no chance of anything more than a slight chance of the CL qualifiers place every few years even if they spend a fortune. I’m sure this will make UEFA happy as well as those supporting the elite who fail to see or care, it will lead to the break away and huge money UEFA are after.

Tried to read it all but only got so far after reading the incorrect figures.

First of all Fergie spent £8 million in 1989, where did you get the squad value being 18 million? Also, Man Utd had sucked for the 1st 4 years of SAF un charge with the FA cup win against Crystal Palace in a replay they won 1-0 after a 3-3 draw saving SAF job.

Second, Even if the numbers you mention were correct are you honestly suggesting that 18 million pounds in 1989/90 is the same as 2.9 billion or 1.8 billion now are you? maybe if you work at a greek bank it is but that inflation rate would be insane.

In 1989, chairman of Man utd Martin Edwards attempted to sell the club to Michael Knighton for £20 million, but the sale fell through and Knighton joined the Board of Directors instead.

Manchester United was floated on the stock market in June 1991 and raised £6.7 million.

In 1998 there was another take over bid, this time from Rupert Murdoch’s British Sky Broadcasting Corporation. This resulted in the formation of Shareholders United Against Murdoch – now the Manchester United Supporters’ Trust – who encouraged supporters to buy shares in the club in an attempt to block any hostile takeover.

I said the Utd squad cost £18m that he spent that in one year! Is that you tit for tat LOL.

You should have read more because then you would have found out where the squads cost came from! You can check the yourself! What has Utd winning the FA cup got to do with anything?

Your second is insane, Utd had a turn over of £367m last year (Delottie) the point is it’s much, much more than the Utd squad cost! you still with me? Now in 93 Utd’s turn over was £25m after stock market float and winning the league amongst other success as well as higher crowds, so I think it’s safe to assume in 89 turn over would have been a lot less around say £8m (that’s generous). So they had a squad costing much more than the turnover, they don’t now do they? A top player’s wage in 1989 would be around £700-£1000 now it’s £250k is this kinda thing sinking in? Football has gone threw a massive upturn since then with added inflation as well. If you can’t work out why what you have said is wrong from this then no one can tell you and you should be left to what ever dream World you’re in!
In 1989 which if you could be bothered checking instead of talking bubbles about how my figures are wrong you would find that £18m in football then was an absolutely massive amount much more than any clubs turn over! The three other teams I have given you costs at around £2.4, £3.1 and £6.7 don’t you get that’s it a hell of a lot less than £18m especially in comparison with turnovers (not with there own as they have only just started they’re own journey) City’s squad costs are not three time higher than there nearest rivals or even the team behind them! City do not pay twice as much as their nearest rivals for players Utd DID.

Edwards (Utd’s Chairman and at the time & owner) tried to sell United to Robert Maxwell in 1984 then to Michael Knighton in 1989. The sale for £10m (Knighton was to invest £10m into the club as well, making your £20m fig but not in the sale) collapsed when after being given access to the club’s books Knighton was unable to raise the funds to pay for the club. But Knighton was still given a seat on the board, at the time it was suggested that this was in exchange for keeping quiet about what he had seen in the books.

Why do you keep repeating what I have already said? I was there pal you clearly wasn’t! You have just Googled stuff and put it here not that most of it’s even relevant, well done! LOL
Explain where the math is off ? Team cost’s are right, football ticket prices at the time are right, English transfer records are right or as right as they can be, again I was there!. So what math is out? I’ll answer It isn’t! I don’t know about dust, more like dusted! LOL

P.S The sale to Murdoch was excepted by Utd around £650m but was disallowed for conflict of interests, again I was around at the time!

I have shown a source where are yours? So the squad was worth 18 million in 1989 but in 1991 a £20 million bid was made for all United asstes including the ground?

Just because you read the info on the link I posted as a source following it up with a “I was there” doesn’t validate anything.

You still don’t bavk up your main statement claiming that in 1989 18 million poinds is just like the billions spent by man city and chelski this millennium.

1989 is only 23 years ago so stop making out like its a hundred years ago! 2.9 billion and 1.8 billion is so much more of a gap betwen those clubs and anyone else in the premier league than there ever was back in 1989.

Let me help you 1 billion is 1000 millions so 2.8 billion is…wait for it…drum roll…..2900 millions.
So even tho you cant support you figures with sources let me help you.

2900 millions and 1800 millions is such a vast amount, so much more than the investment of any other team in the premiership has had over the same period.

I posted the deloitte numbers for the 2011 fiscal year after another poster quoted lala earning numbers for arsenal making crazy claims contrary to facts on this site a few weeks ago. So I am aware of the worlds top 20 clubs earnings. The point you are missing even when comparing man utd’s alleged 18 million is that the winners that year liverpool as you point out were not far behind just 10 million in fact (based of your numbers).

So if like most 2nd graders you have looked at any math you should be able to calculate the percentage difference between what man utd and liverpool spent. This is no where near the percentage diff between what man city and chelski have had invested in them compared to arsenal, man utd or spurs (spurs who by the way have more rarned income than city) over the same period of time.

Then if you are feeling like being a little more accurate you could adjust for inflation, you will discover it doesn’t come close for those figures so stop using 1989 man utd as an example.

Btw £18,00,000.00 (£18 million) is the equivalent of £37,900,000.00 (£37.9 million) Infact 2.8 billion today would be worth £1.37 billion in 1989 so again comparatively it’s not even close!!!

First of all you should buy Manchester a Football History by Gary James and James Ward.

Quickly once again 1989 top player earned £700-£1000 today £250k, most expensive player was £2.3 now it’s £50m biggest turnover was say £9m it’s now £370m how many times are these with your great math? lol.
There is no point trying to explain that any more in ain’t penetrating!

As I have said I was there in 1989 the fact that City beat Utd with the massively expensive £18m squad was huge news and was in many a paper! But just cos you can’t be arsed looking I post a link where you can add the cost of that squad let’s see if it come to your brilliant math amount of £8m!

Just click on all the squad members and add them up, better use a calculator, with your math anyhow!

I didn’t say just inflation did I??? You forgot the upturn that makes a £2.3 player into a £50m player! You’re not taking any other differentials into anything, WOW, Lord give me strength!
Do your dumb calculation on the £9m 1989 turnover, now does it turn into £370m 2011? What would it be with your calculation £18m? doesn’t compute does it basically you’re talking bubbles!! You cannot work things out like that, sense is needed so you may struggle!

Right lets see, statement backed, dust dusted again, what now?

Ah that’s it at the end of the day I know City bought the league as did Chelsea, but I also know Utd, Arsenal and Blackburn (all go up in spending as the years go by, maybe they should have use your math technique, it may have saved them a fortune lol) all these teams did, I don’t pretend it never happened as it did, your problem is you need to believe they some how earned that £18m. You need to think that to keep your bitterness and jealousy under wraps, otherwise what other reasons could you give for it?
Maybe I’ll give you the benefit of doubt, now you know Utd like City spent massively to win the league (as did the others) will it change your opinion even a bit? Nah, didn’t think so keep up the hating, it suits you!!
Any team in modern football has bought it otherwise you know what? They simply won’t win it! Utd’s £18m upto 1989 spent on there squad turned out to be money well spent just as it has already with City for the owners and I’m sure will for the club, I don’t know enough about Chelsea to say anything. I mean have you heard of Abu Dhabi? Etihad? etc. Now had you before 2008? No? What a surprise, so you see the advertising alone on this level of exposure that City’s purchase that makes City a ‘brand’ as well as Etihad Etc. cannot be bought. To the owners the club has already been worth more than they have paid alone. you won’t find a person in a bush in Indo China who hasn’t heard of City, Etihad or Abu Dhabi, a job well done for the Sheik already.

523 words and still you don’t get it, obviously you wrote this response while very animated, its all over the place, take your last paragraph. I’ll put my response inline with () either side so you know its my response.

eg; “I mean have you heard of Abu Dhabi? (yes) Etihad? etc. (yes) Now had you before 2008? (yes) No? (telekinesis, esp needed maybe for you to assume an answer) What a surprise,(you answered for me but it’s not the correct answer) so you see the advertising alone on this level of exposure that City’s purchase that makes City a ‘brand’ as well as Etihad Etc.( ok thats a little garbled, i think you are trying to say that the exposure given to those brands through the man city sponsorship has paid back any investment made by them into the club) cannot be bought. (contradicts everything you just said, clearly it can be bought) To the owners the club has already been worth more than they have paid alone.” (you are repeating the point from 2 sentences ago that you contradicted 1 sentence ago).

I make typos and hit the damn post comment button on my iPhone by accident enough to regret posts, but wow.

I was not going to respond to this quite mad response from you as Im busy enjoying some jasmine tea watching a great england game from 2001 with a view of the bay and city skyline to my right, and wondering what the rational for not taking David Beckham to these euro’s is. When 60 mins of todays Beckham is still better than 90 mins of Henderson, Downing and Walcot. He’s still fit, and scoring goals that deny belief in the MLS perhaps its just a out of site out of mind thing.

You can have as many words as you like keep counting, I can’t be bother doing the same mind I’m enjoying myself though! Did you pull my post to check spelling then do a word count? I don’t know if it’s Hilarious or pathetic?
You pulling me for grammar now that’s rich! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! That’s what pillocks usually do when they feel there getting a bit of a kicking, the good old grammar Nazi card! You have many errors here yourself my man. I’m not writing for a Booker prize, it seems that you are though, a tip for you don’t give up your day job you’ve got no chance!
I also use an i-phone but am watching TV with the Mrs, chillin out with feet up using the lap top at the min though, sorry I don’t find you that interesting to give you my full attention but I’m sure you understand what was wrote.

Where is this contradiction? What I’m talking about is the ‘buzz’ it’s free. For instance the Tevez welcome to Manchester poster for instance, it cost pennies (here’s your chance to be a dick) but brought advertising in the UK estimated at well over £5m alone, around the rest of the world what? £50m? £100m? More? It was in papers, all over the net and TV every where this was basically all free advertising, the ‘buzz’ made it global this took City further into the limelight so without City and the Sheiks investment in them, how many would have really heard of Abu Dhabi and Etihad? Of course you already did, maybe you live in the region, I bet you know Ras al-Khaimah and Sharjah as well but most mere mortals know this area as the UAE. Then again you dis also say you knew that Liverpool’s and Arsenal’s 1989 squads cost similar to Utd’s, that wasn’t wrong was it? Maybe your ‘knowing’ is a bit different than other people’s eh?

I live in Manchester and we don’t have any bays here but we do have football in fact it’s quite big here, being a Spurs fan of course you’re from London. You know I never knew they had bays there either, I guess you live and learn! LOL

Look at this article, see that the wages payed by Chelsea and Man City, to say they are not buying success and distorting the salaries of players in levels never seen before is just blind fan ignorance. Man City wage bill is 114% of its income, and Chelsea’s wage bill is the highest at £191 million!!

What a clown, you think football turnovers and player prices have gone up because of inflation? LOL. Man you are special! go on use your calculation on the top player in 89 he cost £2.3 now put your answer and see again how stupid you look when it doesn’t even get near 1996 levels. Then explain why I look forward to that!

Premier League clubs’ net debt at summer 2011 includes £1.5 billion of interest-free ‘soft loans’ from owners (2010: £1 billion), mostly relating to Chelsea (£819m), Newcastle United (£277m) and Fulham (£200m). The majority of the interest-free debt funding from Roman Abramovich since 2003 has been passed down into the football club as equity investment.

Where have I said here that City or Chelsea didn’t buy anything? I never did anywhere in facy I said that thet had bought it! Are you for real? All I am saying is that ALL clubs that have won it BOUGHT it. Wow where are you from? Mars?

beep beep beep,whats that? ah yes thats the sound of that long winded argument you’ve been making in reverse. LOL

You have claimed that Man utd bought their success, that they are no different than Man City and Chelski, the facts I have presented show that your argument is way off base, the levels of investment by Man Utd were not that much more than Liverpool or Arsenal at the time.

At no point have teams in England had the levels of investment in the short periods of time that City and Chelski have, the scale of investment in these clubs is so vast it is quite ridiculous.

Plus how much did Man Utd pay for Gigs, Beckham, Scholes, Butt, Phill and Gary Neville? I’ll wait for your answer with eager anticipation. how many players in the last 9 years have chelski brought through?

I’m not a Man Utd fan, but the facts are the facts it’s not even remotely the same.

The 1989 Liverpool squad max cost £6.7m see for yourself again keep using the calculator not your crazy math site! LMAO

Kevin Campbell, Tony Adams, Steve Morrow, David O’Leary Paul Davis, David Rocastle, Michel Thomas, Martin Keown, Paul Merson and Paul Dickov. All of these were Arsenal Youth players that were in the first team and squad in 1989/90, so I would love to see where you get the rest even near £6m!

There’s your argument on the floor after it’s been shot to pieces as total lies or just plain ignorance! Please tell me is spending three time more not much?

‘At no point have teams in England had the levels of investment in the short periods of time that City and Chelski have, the scale of investment in these clubs is so vast it is quite ridiculous.’

That was exactly the same for Man Utd what is it you don’t get? SAF Utd manager 86′ to 89′ how many years is that then? lol
Yet again the nearest rivals to Utd spending wise were Liverpool they spent around £6.7 that’s a whooping 3 time less than Utd. Have City spent 3 times more than Utd or Chelsea or vice versa? That’s all anybody needs to know, to show how wrong you are!

Why do you want to know about those players, they have nothing to do with anything? Only one was even involved in Utd’s first premier title which was three year before 89! That one was also poached from City more irrelevance! Tell me how much Wright-Phillips, Richards, Barton, Sturridge, Ireland, Onohua and Guidetti etc cost while we’re talking about total irrelevant things! Or how about the Arsenal players above?

You haven’t shown a single fact!! LOL

1, Did Utd’s 89/90 squad cost £18m you said no, you were wrong!
2, Was this three times more than there rivals Liverpools? Yes, so ur wrong.
3, Did the Arsenal team cost even near to Utd’s Squad? You said yes, guess what yeah you got it wrong again!
4, You said Utd didn’t buy the league but City and Chelsea did, well City and Chelsea did but unfortunately u fail when it came to Utd! Oh dear, Wrong again!

One thing ur right about is that facts are facts, Well done you!

Why are you eagerly anticipating my answer? You just look wrong pal and are, you are funny, I love it!

Wow look at your own word count, I tell you what lets answer it once and for all use your calculation site? Utd’s team in 1968 cost around £155k. Now if you put this in a come back with £18m using the same as you did before I will say what a genius you are and the fact you haven’t taken in to account many other variables but if it come back at say a million or to then….. Well I guess you will be wrong! Crack on my man!

Where are you getting this £1.4 billion you tool? Club cost £220m, player purchases at £450m, now annual losses which include players purchases but I’ll put them in for now just cos I’m that kinda guy: 2011 £194m, 2010 £121, 2009 £117 and 2008 £92 so that’s £1194m if we take off the £450 for players that are accounted for in the losses, I know you’d love to add them twice.Then it’s £744m less than half what you have said.

Where are you getting your info, a Spider man comic business page?
Utd’s £18m is solely what they spent on players and not losses and the tea lady’s wage!

I don’t know why I am dignifying you with this response considering my earlier vow of not responding and your name calling but here I am answering anyway, if only to put you out of your misery.

Ok “why?” I know its good to encourage questions and I think its admirable that you do, I think its great that you question so much it is in your name, but there comes a point where if you can’t figure something out for yourself maybe you should just give up.

The link at the bottom of this post is a story done by the Telegraph and posted August of 2011, this highlights how much and on what up until the story was posted, this does not include the record debt the club has recently disclosed in the Deloitte report, the telegraph news paper like many others will also use the Deloitte report, if you have a spare 600 pounds you can buy a copy for yourself and see the details. So the report amount featured in the telegraph, plus the newly announced debt and the “Etihad stadium” deal. takes it closer to 1.5 billion pounds.

The story mentions the shady 400 million pound investment by “Etihad Airlines” for “Stadium Sponsorship” as well as the outrage expressed at the deal by other clubs in the premier league. Now when you start to ask questions again “why?” like how is this relevant etc… etc… and you jump on your keypad to type “Etihad isn’t the sheiks company, blah blah blah” allow me to explain and help you to avoid the inevitable display of naivety that would ensue should you not read this first and just dive into another piece of science fiction that ends in a misguided click on the “post comment” button.

I will even use wikipedia for you so you can follow the breadcrumbs Sherlock.

Read the second paragraph and digest it, think about it for a few days if needed. Upon completing this thought process I would like you to consider your response and I hope that it isn’t going to be a show of naivety rivaled only by someone falling for the playground classic and very sophisticated “your shoe laces are untied”.

You haven’t answered any of my questions unlike I have to yours, you just came back with more questions which were yet again answered! This I why I think your a tool!!

I asked you to do your calculation on Utd’s 68′ squad just to show how idiotic you were being, as you were trying to make yourself look smart by using an inflation calculator and ignoring every other variable that makes football what it is today this thing have nothing to do with inflation yet you continued to think it was the answer. Did you say ‘I see now this can’t possibly be done it isn’t about inflation’? No you did not you went off on another waffle then another or do you actually think it is still the reason? It wouldn’t surprise me one bit!!

I asked you where in your own words the Sheik had invested £1.4b over the 4 years you said. You preceded to answer this with a story from the Guardian’s Mark ‘the bitter red’ Ogden who totally disagrees with you as well by saying £1b to your£1.4 (he’s adding turnover by the way!), so you then try to add a sponsorship deal to this (I think, I couldn’t be bothered reading this bit) saying why would a company sponsor one of the World’s most up and coming teams for lots of money? Well it’s a mystery isn’t it? I mean it’s not like they now have the most exposure of any team in the English league if not the World is it? DOH. Or it’s not like the were shown on TV more than any other English club and earn more money from this is it? DOH

When wrong you just ignore it and go on as if it never happened then come up with some other crap!!!

The whole point I was making that you tried to fight with tooth and nail against is that yes City and Chelsea both bought the league but so did all the others who won it, my biggest point being unlike City and Chelsea Utd did by spending near enough three times more than there nearest rivals. That’s it really, it’s that simple nothing at all to do with Scholes, Giggs et.al or sponsorship deals. You wanted so say otherwise and be as irrelevant and bitter as possible, well done you succeeded in that! It’s clear to all but the most bitter it seems that clubs that win the Premier league spend more than the others who ever they are otherwise they simply don’t have a chance, a bit like Spurs even thought they spend fortunes it not quite enough.
You may sit sipping Darjeeling one of the nastiest teas ever made lol looking over a bay (not in London I’m sure!) no doubt trying to make yourself look sophisticated by this statement but all you’ve done is show that you are, well a tool! The difference in football cost/prices/profits/losses etc from 1989 to 2012 is inflation. Oh my, oh my!

P.S. Why would the Telegraph pay £600 for accounts that are free to anybody? When City as all clubs are required by law to release an annual report which details the previous financial years end, you know the very same one Deloitte use? Again you make no sense, you haven’t a clue!